Role of Police Service Commission – disciplinary matters

Sep 11, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
As the Police Service Commission Chairman, for the years September 2014 to August 2017, I am appalled to read the article published in one of the dailies captioned “Case dismissed” and an editorial captioned “PSC’s disturbing recommendation to Top Cop” in the paper’s Monday, September 5, 2017 and Tuesday September 6, 2017 editions respectively. These narrations are deemed a deliberate attempt to misguide, mislead and deceive the ordinary reader. I therefore seek to inform the general public on the Constitutionality of the Police Service Commission, with specific reference to the exercising of powers over disciplinary matters of ranks of the Guyana Police Force.
Article 212(1) of the Constitution states that; “the power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power to remove such persons from office shall vest in the Police Service Commission.” Section 5 and 6 of the Police (Discipline) Act, Chapter 17:01 elucidates the procedure for investigation of offences against discipline and the procedure at inquiry.
These Sections explains that every alleged offence should be investigated as soon as practicable (Section 5 (1)).The offences being referred to include insubordination by word disobey lawful order given by a superior, neglect of duty and conducts oneself in a describable manner. More specifically, Section 6 (13) states that where the defaulter is found not guilty or guilty, based on the inquiry done, the Commission may confirm or recommend appropriate punishment in accordance with the provisions.
It is therefore evident that the learned writer(s) are yet to read and understand Article 212 (1) and the Police (Discipline) Act, Chapter 17:01. The Constitution at no instance, made mention of neither the Director of Public Prosecution nor the Police Complaints Authority in relation to exercising disciplinary control.
I wish to highlight Section 9 (4) of the Police Complaints Authority Act, Chapter 17:02, which explains that where a complaint is not rejected, it is forwarded to the Commissioner and an inquiry is conducted in accordance to Section 5 and 6 of the Police (Discipline) Act, Chapter 17:01.Notwithstanding the powers of the Police Complaints Authority to accept and investigate complaints against ranks, a report on the findings and recommendations are to be sent to the disciplinary authority, being the Police Service Commission.
Reference to the editorial on the “disturbing recommendations to the Top Cop”, I wish to state that the Police Service Commission has acted within its powers. Therefore, the missive is deemed mischievous and a deliberate attempt to mislead the unacquainted public.
In relation to the “dismiss the charges” article, all investigations and inquiries were done based on guidelines stipulated in Section 5 and 6 of the Police (Discipline) Act and upon conclusion, the allegations leveled against these ranks were recommended to be dismissed.
For example, a rank was recommended to be charged for neglect of duty since it was reported that they failed to re-file after a magistrate dismissed a case. Upon investigation by the Commission, it was found that the magistrate had passed a ruling in the matter, which resulted in suspended sentences with fine for the accused and not that the matter was ‘’thrown out”.
Therefore, the prosecuting rank was deemed not guilty of neglecting their duties. Similarly, a rank was recommended to be charged for neglect of duty since a prisoner escaped from lawful custody. Upon investigation, it was found that the prisoner escaped from a dilapidated cell at Providence Police Station, while the ‘Defaulter’ was also carrying out duties at the Providence National Stadium.
It was further found by the Commission that the unsecure state of the prison cell was reported at the Sub-division and Divisional level prior, yet prisoners continued to be placed in the cell. Thus, the charges were recommended to be dismissed against this rank.
I wish to unequivocally state that the Commission has found that many allegations brought against ranks are often as a result of investigations being done by junior ranks. Therefore, any unjustified, undocumented, shifting of responsibilities and or frivolous matters resulting in recommendations for disciplinary charges was dismissed by the Commission.
Further, mention should be made of Article 212 (2) which states that “the Police Service Commission may, by directions in writing and subject to such condition as it thinks fit, delegate any of its powers under the preceding paragraph to any one or more of its members of the Commission or to the Commissioner of Police in the case of the power to exercise disciplinary control, to any other member of the Police Force”.
Therefore, the Commission which has the authority to exercise disciplinary control and the power to delegate same if it so thinks fit has exercised same time and time again.
The learned writer(s) obviously forgot to mention same. Most recently, the Commission instructed the Commissioner of Police (ag.) to establish tribunals for five ranks of the Force, namely three Inspectors, a Deputy Superintendent and a Senior Superintendent – all of whose charges were recommended by the Police Complaints Authority. The charges were neglect of duty and the Senior Superintendent’s being “act in a manner likely to bring discredit to the Force”. Interestingly, in correspondence dated August 15th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th, 2017, the “Top Cop” has recommended that all charges be dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence, despite the recommendations from the Police Complaints Authority. Three questions must be answered –
1) What differing investigation was done by the acting top cop that resulted in his vastly different conclusion and recommendations?
2) If the Police Service Commission has “no constitutional authority to instruct the Force not to charge nor discipline” Police ranks, why did the acting top cop concede to the instructions to investigate the five ranks referred to above and why did he forward recommendations forthwith?
3) Should these charges be dropped, on whose recommendations and instructions should it be done?
I will reiterate that all complaints and recommended charges must be brought to the Police Service Commission who is authorized by law, to inquire and sanction on matters of this nature. It should be noted that all decisions taken to dismiss any allegation leveled against a rank of the Force during my tenure was based on unanimous decisions taken at duly constituted meetings.
The Commission has acted within its rights to delegate the functions to investigate and recommend on cases as the Commission thinks fit.These findings, once delegated, must be returned back to the Commission who has the sole power and responsibility to act on same.
Omesh Satyanand
Former PSC Chairman

---

---